Deceptive interrogation

Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), affirmed the legally permissible use of deceptive interrogation tactics by law enforcement officers. Accordingly, not only is it legal, but it’s ethically responsible for police officers to engage in prejudicial conduct at the onset of a defendant’s experience in what our democratic society otherwise deems as a fair judicial process.

Discuss your reasons for accepting or rejecting the use of deceptive interrogation practices. If you believe this is an acceptable approach, please reconcile this practice with claims of how engaging in deceptive interrogation tactics both erodes public trust in law enforcement and encourages false confessions. If you believe this is an unacceptable practice, please explain how you would forgo a perfectly legal and professionally expected duty to obtain what is generally known as the most persuasive piece of evidence imaginable that routinely results in guilty verdicts. And while I know this is an ethics class, honestly, would you really return a pedophile back to the streets, into your neighborhood, because a police officer lied to him during interrogation? If so, what value are you holding higher?